CO Apt. Complex Bans Guns.

[gym]

Agree, they may and probably will be allowed to issue new demands on new tenants, but existing tenants will more than likely be grandfathered in as far as guns go. As changing an existing lease goes to "good faith" and the courts will more than likely uphold the tenants right to expect things not to change once they signed a legal document. Unless they are willing to allow all of the leases to be voided and even then it seems far fetched that they can just change the lease regulations once signed.
You know the old saying about good men doing nothing, this is a prime example of that, it would be a good time to do something.

 

[WardenWolf]

It is private property, they can make any rule they want. You are free NOT to live there


Those apply to the government regarding you



Have any court decisions and citations for these remarks?

I cannot cite the specific case, but I do remember a case of an HOA attempting something similar, banning guns from their neighborhood. That one didn't hold up in court. The whole thing died, not just a ban on open carry on neighborhood streets.

 

[Arbo]

US Code, Title 42 ....

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, "

 

[oneounceload]

If they want you out, demand ALL of your deposit monies back, including any utilities, the cost of a truck to move to another location, and your lost wages for finding a new place and taking time off to make the move.....

 

[oneounceload]

I cannot cite the specific case, but I do remember a case of an HOA attempting something similar, banning guns from their neighborhood. That one didn't hold up in court. The whole thing died, not just a ban on open carry on neighborhood streets.

Not the same scenario - in that case you are a homeowner, not the HOA, in this case you are a lessee.

 

[Hacker15E]

Constitutional rights have to do with what the government cannot abridge. It has nothing whatsoever with what a property owner may or may not do with their own property.

All of you flying the "rights" banner best go read up on property rights.

Banning weapons in an apartment complex does not mean that the renters no longer have the "right" to bear arms -- they just can't do it on that property.

Replace "weapons" with "Westboro Baptist Church", replace "possess" with "demonstrate against you", and replace the "apartment complex" with "your property you own"...see how you feel about that competition of "rights".

 

[Tom K]

This.

A property OWNER has every right to decide what is and is not allowed on his property as long as he does not violate federal law (No pets, no smoking, no loud music is fine, no minorities or catholics is not.
...

So it would also be perfectly fine to say:

No televisions
No radios
No computers
No books
No toasters
No oscillating fans
No underwear
Etc.

Anything the landlord says, goes, because???

 

[Hacker15E]

So it would also be perfectly fine to say:

No televisions
No radios
No computers
No books
No toasters
No oscillating fans
No underwear
Etc.

Anything the landlord says, goes, because???

Because it is his property, and he is allowing you to occupy it in accordance with your rental contract.

 

[dab102999]

dab - so if I understand you correctly, folks with current leases are now having their leases modified whether they agree to it or not? That would be breaking a valid contract on the part of the lessor. If a tenant was to break a lease, there are usually penalties - loss of deposit, etc. There might be the reverser in this regard - it would be best to contact a local attorney to see if some form of remuneration is in order.

New tenants, going forward, will be under the new regulations

I guess I wasnt being clear but yes that is how I understand the article and video. That current residents are being handed a revised lease. Are you able to watch the video?

 

[PRM]

deleted

 

[dogtown tom]

Lotsa experts on the 2nd Amendment, but not a clue to simple contract law.......

Arbo US Code, Title 42 ....

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, "

Nice cut and paste if it applied to a private business, but it does not.

Tom K

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
This.

A property OWNER has every right to decide what is and is not allowed on his property as long as he does not violate federal law (No pets, no smoking, no loud music is fine, no minorities or catholics is not.
...

So it would also be perfectly fine to say:

No televisions
No radios
No computers
No books
No toasters
No oscillating fans
No underwear
Etc.

Anything the landlord says, goes, because???

Seriously, you really have to ask this?

If the lease conditions say "NO Cooking"............then it means "NO cooking". No one forces you to sign a lease, if you do not like the conditions look elsewhere.

I've rented aparments where the lease stated:
No aluminum foil on the inside of your windows (it gets hot in Texas).
No laundry drying on your balcony/porch.
No ornaments hung on front door.

So guess what?.............if you don't like those rules DON'T SIGN THE LEASE!!!!!:banghead:

 

[kwguy]

That is so stupid.

As far as 'unlimited access' goes, I believe that is state by state. I remember in texas, a new tenant HAD to have new locks and keys installed, and only the tenant had access to the residence. The landlord or rental agency specifically did not have access to the place without specific advance notice and permission of the tenent.

Don't know if it was state wide or local...

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

They have to give you 24hrs notice before entering in this state___plenty of time to move your stash

 

[LemmyCaution]

I sent them a letter, If someone gets killed, it's on them.

It must have been a very strongly worded letter, if it needs a caveat like that.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

I do not believe so, as the Constitution applies to you being protected from your gov't's infringement on your rights (a lot of good it seems nowadays). It is still private property and even if some folks are having their rent subsidized by us via the Federal government, that doesn't change the ownership

Once you open your property to the public like an apartment complex or business it really is no longer "private".

 

[Arbo]

Nice cut and paste if it applied to a private business, but it does not.

I am sorry you do not understand the statute.

 

[oneounceload]

Once you open your property to the public like an apartment complex or business it really is no longer "private".

Sure it is - I can open a business and dictate things like "no shoes, no shirt, no service", or "no smoking", or any of a number of otherwise legal things. As a landlord, I can dictate no smoking anywhere on the grounds, or no kids in the pool without a parent as there is no lifeguard ( and for you folks saying he is responsible for protecting me if no guns, the pool is a perfect example of no he isn't - more folks die in drownings than shootings). I can say no Confederate flags publicly displayed or used as curtains, no loud music, no working on cars in the parking lot, and on and on.......

As the old saying goes: The Golden Rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules; or MY house, MY rules.

Pretty plain and simple, if you do not like the rules, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out- he isn't holding a gun to your head (pun intended) demanding you live there. Gun owners, like smokers, are NOT a protected class of people, so discrimination laws do not apply

 

[stressed]

I'm sure a career felon or armed thug will sure respect those rules - since their job is breaking the law anyway and are breaking the law possessing a weapon in the first place, and they will know everyone else will be unarmed.

Like taking candy from a child.

 

[oneounceload]

Stressed - I agree, it is a robbery or rape waiting to happen, and as a gun owner, I would want out of there ASAP. That being said, if I am being forced out from a place where I have a valid contractual obligation, I want some monetary relief for my efforts - n short, I am going to make it expensive for them to get rid of me. That is what businesses of ANY kind understand - a severe blow to the bottom line. IANAL, however, and so someone in this scenario needs to talk to one versed in rental leases in that state

 

[doc2rn]

Gentleman and Ladies if the company takes federal money they are bound by federal statutes not state. So US code Title 42 would apply to them. Same thing goes for highways and state roads that take gov money to rebuild them. Fed statute states that the HP cant issue a ticket unless that highway or road has had a traffic flow study. Gotten out of several tickets that way.

 

[oneounceload]

We have not only HP, but county and local police issuing tickets on the interstate in several areas here in the South, as well as on US highways that predate the Interstate. Don't pay the fine and a bench warrant will be issued.

Gun owners are not a protected class, and the landlord is not depriving you of your right to own a gun. He is not allowing you to possess it on HIS property, but you are free to possess it anywhere else not restricted by law

 

[CoRoMo]

I sent them a letter, If someone gets killed, it's on them.

That's why they put the gun ban in place.

 

[tomrkba]

It is an evil and immoral position to disarm someone merely because it is their property and they wish to exert their limited authority. A person's life is more important than "authority" and certainly more important than anything relating to money.

A right exceeds a contract, though the corrupt Supreme Court states we have an unlimited right to contract. We should not in that no mere contract should ever override an inalienable right. This is how we are disarmed on airlines--by implicit agreement to a contract with the airline. It is completely ridiculous!

 

[dogtown tom]

Arbo I am sorry you do not understand the statute.

Then enlighten me.

But before you embarrass yourself, you need to read the bolded words below.
"Under color of law" applies to law enforcement or other government officers.......NOT private businesses or their employees.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)

But please prove otherwise.

Arbo US Code, Title 42 ....

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, "

 

[dogtown tom]

Originally Posted by gym
I sent them a letter, If someone gets killed, it's on them.

Providing for your personal protection is not the responsibility of a property owner. They are no more liable for the safety of their tenants due to criminal action than you would be for someone visiting your home.